Explain in a FEW word's why the 607 date is incorrect.

by XPeterX 102 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jeffro

  djeggnog claims:

  I believe based on the inscription written on the Nabonidus Chronicle that read, "Babylon fell VII/16/17," indicating that the date of Babylon's fall occurred on Tishri 14, 539 BC ("VII": Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, "14": 14th day; and "17": 17th year of Nabonidus' reign), which year would have become Cyrus' accession year that regnal year, that it would have been during Cyrus' first regnal year, which ran from Nisan 538 BC to Nisan 537 BC, that he issued a decree that permitted the Jews to leave Babylon and "go up to Jerusalem,

  Some JWs go to great lengths to give the appearance that they respect facts when trying to support their false 607 dogma. The thing is, believing the period of 70 years (during which all the surrounding nations served Babylon) ended in 537 (though 538 is the correct year for the return of the Jews) requires disbelief in the order of events stated at Jeremiah 25:12. JWs try so hard to accept JW dogma even when their teachings directly contradict the Bible. It's really quite sad.
• 

  Black Sheep

  
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Eggonmynoggin MISSES the point yet again... (the length of the reigns and no gaps) ...deflect, distract, dodge..the usual MO. I'm not debating this wth you egg old chum, if you are too stupid, stubborn or dishonest to see the mountain of overwhelming facts then I'm not about to waste my time to try and change your mind.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  [Ann formerly] How is it unreliable? If any of the data is incorrect, you must tell me and then I can correct it.

  [djeggnog] Must I? No, I don't think I must. You just want to argue with me about your data, when your data is totally insignificant to me as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  LOL! You were the one alleging my data was unreliable. You started this. Man up and follow through. One instance was all I was asking for. (Wimp!)

  Or was this another one of your fabrications to stir things up? Yes ... given your discussion history and past examples of shameless dishonesty, I think we'll go with that one.

  I'm not bothering with the rest of your repetitive and incoherent twaddle. I have better things to do today.
• 

  Alfred

  I'm beginning to think that djeggnogg is a compensated endorser of the Watchtower Real Estate Development Corporation Society. Why else would he twist the facts the way he does with such extreme dishonesty?
• 

  Londo111

  Djeggnog,

  Despite my better judgment, I shall post again, even though I might be "striking the air". Oftentimes, I get the sense the discussions you are having with others as well as myself are going past each other. I am very curious as to who you are. From personal experience, I know the average Witness would not consider for a moment to look at a site such as this, much less engage in conversation here. Even though Christian Freedom allows it, it is 180 degrees from what the Society directs, and such disloyalty could result in disciplinary action if come to light. Unless you are not just the average Witness.

  I would like to go back to what I said before about the misrepresentations in the publications, setting aside whether 607 BC is scriptural or not, much less backed up by any evidence outside the Bible. If a person wishes to believe and teach 607 BC as the date of Jerusalem's destruction, that is their prerogative, but never at the cost of honesty and integrity. As Christians, we must speak truth at all times. We must worship God in "spirit and truth". Christian love "rejoices in truth". It is better not to quote someone, than to quote selectively in such a way to misrepresent their thoughts.

  Again, "Wisdom is crying aloud in the streets"…a little searching and one can find instances were the Society's publications have failed to meet this fundamental criteria of Christian practice--especially in regard to 607 BC. However, I would like to highlight a few instances.

  Let us go to the November 2011 Public Watchtower, page 28. Note 18, regarding VAT 4956 says, "Though the cuneiform sign for the moon is clear and unambiguous, some of the signs for the names of the planets and their positions are unclear. (Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 53-57) Because of this, the planetary observations are open to speculation and to several different interpretations."

  Again setting aside whether 607 BC is correct, or if VAT 4569 is a reliable witness--the reference Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology is cited to support that idea why the planetary observations should be thrown out. However, the reference says no such thing. VAT 4956 contains clear and unambiguous planetary names.

  Note 17 says, "Therefore, the first Babylonian month (Nisanu) would have started the new year two months earlier, on May 2/3. While normally the year of this eclipse would have begun on April 3/4, VAT 4956 states on line 6 that an extra month (intercalary) was added after the twelfth (last) month (Addaru) of the preceding year. (The tablet reads: “8th of month II2.”) Therefore, this made the new year actually not start until May 2/3."

  In all the years of this calendar system, the month of Nissan never began in May. Intercalary months were only added so that the year would not begin before the spring equinox. It would never have been added in such a way to make the year start exceedingly late like this. Here, the Society readjusted the known calendar for this year in order to point to a lunar observation and force it agree with VAT 4956.

  BTW--if VAT 4956 is irrelevant as you have previously said, why is the Society putting so much credence in this astronomical diary? Is this not "food at the proper time"? Are you not contradicting "the Slave"?

  Finally, I would like to point out this link:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/224416/1/The-June-2012-citation-of-Ephraim-Stern

  Here we see that the June 2012 Awake selectively quoting Ephraim Stern in an effort to prove the case for 607 BC. However, when reading the quotation in full context, it is a flagrant misrepresentation of what the scholar is saying.

  There are many other misrepresentations in Part 1 & 2, as well as other articles, and AnnOMaly and others have pointed them out. For the benefit of the lurkers, as well as yourself, I would consult the following link of links about this subject. Digging will be required, but the secular quotations in their context can be found in abundance, as well as what some of these scholars thought of how they were quoted.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/222960/1/e2809cWHEN-WAS-ANCIENT-JERUSALEM-DESTROYED-e2809d-Why-does-it-matter-The-Watchtower-October-1-2011-and-November-1-2011

  To my brothers and sisters who may be lurking: know that I love you.

  Londo
• 

  diamondiiz

  people like djeggnog aren't interested in reality because they're here with an alternative motive. This could be another incarnation of Renaa or Alice/Spade/Maze. Either way debating a topic with these people is purely a waste of time because they're posting their vomit here to irritate people and not to talk about real world. We have most educated minds in the world, entire country of Israel, believing destruction took place in 586/7BC but to most uneducated groups on the planet, and to most dishonest publishing company obviously 607BC is a correct date. Is it really worth the time spent trying to show these sort of people the facts, the facts these people don't care about? I really doubt it.
• 

  Phizzy

  DearDiamondiiz, quite true, pearls before swine, but when I first found this site I read a lot of old archived stuff, some from the very inception of JWD, and I was actually saddened that the JW apologists, without exception, either left after getting their botty kicked, or resorted to obfuscation , half-truths, down-right lies or simply ignoring the devastating posts of their intellectual betters,i.e honest, on here.

  Not one JW could make an honest defense of their basic doctrines, it convinced me beyond any shadow of doubt that the JW/WT religion was totally false.

  I was saddened because as a born-in I hoped it had some redeeming feature, it did not.

  Maybe this thread will do the same for others, we see Eggy using the underhanded tactics I mention above, his words are more damning to the WT position than his silence would be.

  Few words ? 607BCE as a date for Jerusalem's destruction has not one shred of credible evidence.
• 

  breakfast of champions

  . . .it would logically mean that by our subtracting 70 years from 537 BC, we will have deduced based on (1) the Bible, (2) Josephus and(3) the Nabonidus Chronicle. . .

  Not saying I know everything about this stuff, but from Against Apion by Josephus: "21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius"

  If I am misreading what is being said here, please let me know.
• 

  wantingtruth

  The year 607 BCE was very correct !

  It has been a real year in the earth's history , preceded by 608 BCE and followed by 606 BCE !

  But the truth is , this year (607) is of no value for Christians , at all !

  Why ?

  Because it is no part of any Biblical prophecy regarding our time .

  The interpretations which implied that year are absolutely non based upon the "teaching of Christ" , and therefore they are not from God !

  Quote :

  "Because Christ started ruling in Heaven immediately after his ressurection , according to the"teaching of Christ", there is no place for such interpretations which leads to conclusions as 1874 or 1914 or other years as the time for Christ starting to rule in Heaven.

  Source of the quote is here .

  wanting...